Trayvon Martin Case (Zimmerman charged; 2nd deg. murder)

[Anguirus]

Well Zimmerman's side of the story, courtesy of Sanford police, has at last come out:

Orlando Sentinel

Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his head
12:18 p.m. EST, March 26, 2012|

By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened, but that night, Feb. 26, and in later meetings he described and re-enacted for police what he says happened.

In his version of events, he had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.

Civil rights leaders and thousands of others have demanded Zimmerman's arrest, calling Trayvon a victim of racial profiling and Zimmerman a vigilante.

Trayvon was an unarmed black teenager who had committed no crime, they say, who was gunned down while walking back from a 7-Eleven with nothing more sinister than a package of Skittles and can of Arizona iced tea.

Supporters have held rallies in Sanford, Miami, New York and Tallahassee, calling the case a tragic miscarriage of injustice.

Activist Al Sharpton headlined a rally in Sanford Thursday that drew an estimated 8,000 people. The Rev. Jesse Jackson yesterday spoke at an Eatonville church, where he called Trayvon a martyr.

Zimmerman has gone into hiding. A fringe group, the New Black Panthers, have offered a $10,000 reward for his capture.

Police have been reluctant to provided details about all their evidence, but this is what they've disclosed to the Sentinel:

Zimmerman was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon walking through his gated community.

Trayvon was visiting his father's fiancée, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.

Zimmerman called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.

Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.

There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.

Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.

Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police.

Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose.

Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.

Zimmerman began yelling for help.

Several witnesses heard those cries, and there's been a dispute about from whom they came: Zimmerman or Trayvon.

Lawyers for Trayvon's family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.

One witnesses, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.

Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest from very close range, according to authorities.

When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head.

Paramedics gave him first aid, but he said no to going to the hospital. He got medical care the next day.

The Department of Justice last week opened a civil rights investigation into what happened, and Gov. Rick Scott appointed a special prosecutor.

It's not clear whether the special prosecutor, Angela Corey, the state attorney for Duval, Clay and Nassau counties, will have Zimmerman arrested, announce that there's not enough evidence to file a manslaughter charge or present evidence to a grand jury.

Notes:

1) This is the first I've heard of Zimmerman being "in hiding."
2) The New Black Panthers are obviously a bunch of shitheads. Apparently several have been interviewed by the media recently in connection with this case; an editorial I read somewhere compared to to interviewing the KKK in a case of black-on-white violence. I'm guessing this is a publicity bonanza for the group, I had never even heard of them.
3) Though "stand your ground" may not be Zimmerman's defense, his story certainly reminds me of the "dead men tell no tales" critique of "stand your ground" by Florida's chief prosecutor.
4) Some fellows set up a fake FB page for Martin to make him look like a massive "thug," and that picture is circulating the Internet. If the real "5'9'' and weedy" Martin destroyed Zimmerman this comprehensively, I can't help but be a little impressed with him. Of course it is possible, but I freely admit my bias and skepticism regarding this account.
5) Anyone else get the irony from the story that the black guy jumped the white Hispanic guy when the latter started to pull out an innocuous object?
6) I was mistaken in an earlier post; Martin did not live in the neighborhood.

Also, I found a good collection of links of the kind of personal accounts I alluded to before. Whatever the facts of this case are determined to be, it doesn't change that this is illuminating material.

[Anguirus]

Well that's a switch. Ok, now Zimmerman's defense WILL involve the stand-your-ground law:

ABC

The attorney counseling George Zimmerman, who shot unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin as he was walking home from the store with a bag of Skittles, says if charges are filed, Zimmerman will argue that he acted in self-defense and that Florida's stand-your-ground law applies.

Attorney Craig Sonner said the public is only hearing part of the story, and when all the facts come out, it will be clear that Zimmerman acted in self defense. A grand jury is scheduled to begin hearing the case April 10.

"George Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, and had an injury to the back of his head, he was attacked by Trayvon Martin on that evening," Sonner said. "This was a case of self defense."

When asked why Zimmerman went after Martin, even though a 911 dispatcher told him not to, Sonner said: "Those are questions that will be answered."

Sonner said the so-called stand-your-ground law, under which a person who feels threatened is not required to retreat and can "meet force with force" if attacked, will be applicable in the case.

Sonner insisted that Zimmerman is not a racist, pointing out that he and his wife mentored for two black children for free.

"When I asked this mother [of the mentees], who trusted [Zimmerman and his wife], and she's an African-American, if she trusted George Zimmerman, she said she did, and I asked her if there was anything that caused her to believe that she was a racist, and she said, 'Absolutely not.' And I said, went further, 'Did you ever hear him use racial slurs in any time that you'd been around him?' And she said, 'no' as well," Sonner said.

Joe Oliver, a family friend of Zimmerman's who spoke with him this weekend, told ABC News that as a volunteer community watch commander, Zimmerman had to look out for suspicious-looking people.

"There are people who have accused George of profiling, well, I would think as a watch commander you are keeping an eye out for people you don't recognize in your neighborhood," Oliver said.

"The reason why he was following this suspicious person that he saw was because the neighborhood had a rash of break-ins," he said. "George had no intention of taking anyone's life. He cried for days after."

Oliver said the headlines have taken a toll on Zimmerman, his wife, and his family.

"He's moved, they've disconnected their phone numbers, they're in hiding, they're fearful," Oliver said.

The Zimmerman family friend also denied that a word the watchman is heard blurting out on one of the 911 tapes is the racial slur, "coon." Oliver said the word he hears Zimmerman saying is "goon."

"As far as, I mean as far as George being racist, I didn't take it as a racist term. I heard 'goon' and talking to my teenage daughter, apparently goon is a term of endearment in high school these days," he said.

"He wasn't talking to Trayvon when that comment was made. He was speaking a generality in that this suspicious person was someone who he – lumped in -- as always getting away -- goon, coon. I mean, the bottom line, he thought he needed to keep an eye on this individual for whatever reason," Oliver said.

Oliver said he believes the voice screaming for help on the 911 tape is Zimmerman's.

After talking with Zimmerman, Oliver says he's convinced that it came down to a final life-or-death moment: "At that point, either George or Trayvon was going to die."

[Ziggy Stardust]

It is entirely reasonable that Zimmerman did not know what street he was on. In the dark, in the rain, trying to track someone in a dark hoodie, it isn't at all unlikely that he got disoriented. Suburban developments can be cookie-cutter and various intersections can look pretty similar, especially at night in the rain when you might not be able to make out landmarks as well.

In addition, while it certainly is very strange that he felt the need to get out of his car to read a street sign, it isn't impossible that the situation necessitated that. If a street light was out, or dim, or there wasn't one nearby, or if branches of a tree were partially blocking it, it is possible that he would have had to step closer to get a good look at the street name.

Personally, I find Zimmerman's account pretty suspect; especially in Martin jumping him from behind (why would he do that?). However, it isn't impossible that the situation played out that way.

[Akhlut]

You see some guy stalking you back from the convenience store, it is entirely plausible that you'd confront him about it (general you, not you in specific).

Doesn't mean that Mr. Martin did that to Zimmerman, but it is plausible.

[Ziggy Stardust]

You see some guy stalking you back from the convenience store, it is entirely plausible that you'd confront him about it (general you, not you in specific).

Doesn't mean that Mr. Martin did that to Zimmerman, but it is plausible.

Confrontation, yes, but since when is leaping on someone from behind your first go-to option for confronting a stranger that's creeping you out?

EDIT: Pressed post too soon. What I am saying is that I would not at all be surprised if Martin approached Mr. Zimmerman, possibly in a manner that could be construed as aggressive. That is not at all out of the question. What I find odd is that Zimmerman's statement indicates that Martin was hiding, waited for Zimmerman to turn his back, and assaulted him. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[SVPD]

Do you know what Prior Probability is? Basically, it is taking information about the past, and using it in an attempt to predict the future with a degree of uncertainty. Were I actually doing Bayesian statistics, I might for example try to get a ballpark estimate for the humidity on March 25th by taking 100 years of climate data for that day and arriving at a mean and the variance around that mean. There are also Priors that are less mathematically useful, but useful when trying to figure out how likely something is in one's head. For example, I know that the probability of a random cop (or random person, for that matter) being a racist is higher in a small town in Florida than in say... Toronto. I also know that the history of the criminal justice system and black people is not exactly stellar over and above any higher probability of black people committing crimes because of institutional and active racism. I also know that one of the officers at the scene in this case has a record of shall we say... poor judgement (to put it mildly). Do I KNOW there was racism involved? No. Is it more likely than some sort of National Average Probability? Yes.

I'm well aware that you are very impressed with your own ability to do statistical analysis, and believe you can quash opposing arguments on complex social issues just by trotting out statistical procedureres.. never mind that there are countless sociologists and other scientist who are also able to do statistical analysis and have been trying to sovle complex social problems for ages and haven't been able to.

Nevertheless, let's look at your ideas:
1) "Racism" is not a quantifiable thing except in the most general sense of "more" or "less"
2) What constitutes "racism" is highly subjective and a matter of debate in and of itself. Contrary to the illusions of some people, racism is not "whatever a minority/the left/AD/the majority on SDN say it is." You "know" all these things about racism as you define racism, and no one is under any obligation to accept your personal pronouncements on what is and isn't.
3) Saying that "the probability of a cop in Florida being racist is higher than in Toronto" is meaningless. Almost anyone would agree to this. But so what? We cannot claim that the cop in this case was racist because of that. What we essentially can't do is claim he was racist because of his actions, then turn around and claim his actions are evidence of his racism. That's simply circular argument.
4) "Insitutional and active racism" are similarly, matters of open debate. They are not "givens" at all. See above. It's very easy to create "institutional" and "Active" racism when you use whatever definition is most convenient to yourself.. especially when any dissenting opinion is denounced as, itself, racism.
5) You have no way of saying that it is above any national average. You are simply inventing this and trying to use your familiarity with statistical procedure to create an illusion of scientific and mathematical validity.

I am not in a court of law. There are no stakes involved in my making this call. I am not required to accept only a "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof. Instead, I can accept a "preponderance of evidence" burden of proof, which when we take everything into consideration means that the police involved in this case are incompetent/lazy morons who dropped the ball--at best.

Whether they are incompetent or lazy is a separate issue from whether they are racist. Furthermore, if you want someone else (like me) to accept that they're racist, you'll have to do better than a "preponderance of the evidence", most of which is based on bigotry against Southerners dressed up as some sort of statistical evidence, and claims about the criminal justice system that are essentially Complex Cause Fallacy.

Read the god damn thread. Multiple other witnesses heard a Martin screaming for help and begging for his life. The police "corrected" at least one and said point blank that it was Zimmerman doing the screaming to said witness.

I do not recall reading any such thing. If the witnesses only heard the screaming, and did not see the altercation, how exactly did they know it was Martin?

Thus tainting the witness pool, and showing a high probability that they simply took Zimmerman's account at face value because they went about correcting the testimony of witnesses that contradicted him.

Where's your evidence that the witnesses actually saw who was doing the screaming? Correcting a witness who is making an assumption that they cannot testify to is not "tainting the witness pool". What exactly is "begging for his life"? Did the witnesses actually see that or did they simply hear someone screaming, and then later, after finding out the kid was shot, simply assume it was him doing the begging or screaming? Are any of them familiar enough with either Martin or Zimmerman to identify their voices by sound?

Here's a clue, Mr Preponderance of the Evidence. If Zimmerman is to be prosecuted, the prosecutor better have all these holes filled, because Zimmerman's defense attorney will steamroll him. Pointing out that "it's the South" and "statistical likelihood of bigotry" or whatever you want to call it isn't going to work; that's going to get at best tossed as irrelevant and if the prosecutor is really stupid and keeps doing it could cause a mistrial.

Yet if Zimmerman gets off because of these problems with the case, idiots like you that like to think any outcome you disagree with is due to "institutional racism" or "batshit insanity" will be right back decrying this as a case of "institutional racism" and totally ignoring the fact that even if Zimmerman is guilty as sin of murder, if these problems with the case and the witnesses can't be addressed, he will, and should, walk. That's called Reasonable Doubt. It is not "Institutional Racism" to find not guilty based on reasonable doubt just because the victim is a black teen in the south.

Of course, none of these witnesses need contradict. Let us assume that yes, Martin was begging for his life, and that yes, he had in fact managed to get on top of Zimmerman at some point.

One of these came first.

Sequence A)

Zimmerman follows Martin
Martin confronts Zimmerman because he wants to find out why he is being followed, or Zimmerman Confronts Martin because Zimmerman is either a racist or unstable.
At some point, gun gets drawn.
Martin begs for his life as per witness testimony, to no avail
Martin realizes he is not getting out of this alive, fights back, gets Zimmerman to the ground
Zimmerman shoots him in the struggle

In this case, you are making this leap of "Martin realizes he is not getting out of this alive". How does Martin "realize" this? Is he simply assuming it because Zimmerman has a gun? If so, what exactly did Zimmerman do that makes Martin "beg for his life" and how do we know it's "to no avail"? He clearly hasn't actually shot Martin yet because Martin in your scenario still knocks him down and gets on top of him. Zimmerman is standing there making it clear he's going to shoot the kid, but then fucks around about it? Where's the witness testimony to that effect? Zimmerman has already called the police, but then he confronts the kid, not even with the expectation of detaining him until the police arrive, but of killing him and then fiddles around about it until the kid finally gets desperate and jumps on him? What was he doing, having a Villian Monologue? You see the underlined and italicized portions? If Zimmerman was really intent on shooting Martin, how do we get through the intervening space without Martin already being shot?

Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, at worst. The witness testimony has distinct holes, and your scenario does not work.

Sequence B)
Zimmerman follows Martin
Martin confronts Zimmerman because he wants to find out why he is being followed, or Zimmerman Confronts Martin because Zimmerman is either a racist or unstable.
A physical altercation happens.
Martin gets the upper hand
Zimmerman draws gun
Martin realizes the man is armed and proceeds to surrender and begs for his life as per witness testimony, at which point he is no longer a threat
Zimmerman shoots him

Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

Again, this makes no sense. If Zimmerman is really down on the ground and draws the gun, he shoots Martin immediately. Why would he give Martin time to beg for his life? That's silly. You A) have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of what close-quarters or hand-to-hand combat is like and B) are trying to insert events in order to make Zimmerman guilty of murder which you have no evidence for. Again, your witnesses are unreliable and can only testify that someone was screaming or begging for their life. If they'd actually seen who it was, you wouldn't be inventing these sceanrios; we'd already know the sequence of events, especially with more than one of them so they could be bounced off each other.

This only works if you are accepting the testimony of zimmerman and one witness to the exclusion of other witnesses who heard Martin begging for his life. Why you would do this, I cannot know for certain.

Again, there is no reason to think the witnesses actually knew who was doing the screaming or begging. That's why. I hate to break it to you but witnesses do that all the time; they allow knowledge they acquired later to form assumptions in their mind and change their testimony. Why do you think they're so frequently sequestered in court? Even a witness determiend to be honest is not immune.

However, it seems to me that there is a positive prior probability of unknown magnitude that you are bending over backwards to justify the actions of police officers. You are also making a shit ton of assumptions with no data

There are no police officers involved in what we're discussing. We're discussing who did what. I already said I thinkt he polcie handled this incompetently; even if Zimmerman is 100% innocent a shooting death should not be dealt with in such a cavalier fashion.

This remark however indicates several things.
1) You are appealing to motive, engaging in ad homenium and attempting to poison the well based on your knowledge that I am in law enforcement
2) You are changing the subject to the police; I am discussing the killing, not the investigation. The investigation was at best poor, regardless of guilt or innocence. The police department in question is evidently completely inept when it comes to shootings.
3) You are again using statistical jargon to mask your own poor reasoning and predjudices.
4) YOU are the one making a shit ton of assumptions without data. Almost everything you've had to say about "racism" is based on your personal subjective assessment of A) what is and isn't racism and B) who, how often and to what degree they engage in it and C) bigotry regarding southerners in general, which, regardless of the history of the South, is still inexcuseable. Every southerner is not a bigot. Your assumptions about the sequence of events are exactly that - assumptions, and you contradict yourself by talking about what the witnesses heard but then admit they didn't see who was actually doing what, screaming included.

I love how you ignore... logic itself... in this one. Especially because your refutation has already been dealt with by me earlier.

You assume that he would need to know what street he is on. There is no reason for Zimmerman to need to know the street name unless he had followed this kid a considerable distance away from his native turf. He was NOT on the phone with police when physical contact with Martin was made, so he was not relaying that location.

I love how you pretend to be using anything remotely approaching logic. I also already addressed this. He stated he would tell the police where he was when they called him back. He therefore would need to know the name of the street whether he was on the phone or not because he was expecting a call from the police inquiring about that information at some unknown point in the near future.

You are simply cherry-picking the evidence from the very conversation you cited. You did not "deal with" this point at all; all you did was look at when the conversation ended and ignore the part where Zimmerman stated exactly that he did not know where he would be and would give that information to the police when they called. His "mental map" does not help him at all; at best he could describe his location indirerectly with landmarks but that is slower and less accurate than a street name. In fairness to you, I'm sure it was unintentional since you're obviously too ignorant of law enforcement and reconstructing a tactical scenario or sequence of events to have done it deliberately.

So no, KS is not wrong. That would also explain getting out to check the street name, since he would need to tell the police where to meet him when they called.

It MIGHT. But how often--even in the rain-- do you need to get out of a car to check a street name? I dont know about you, but I have driven in torrential rain in both TX and FL, and even in rather large thunderstorms with sheets of water drenching everything, I can still read street signs just fine. Stopped, or in motion... and if you have ever been to Arlington, you will know that street signs (and everything else about the roads) can get fucked up beyond all imagination here. Eventually, the contrivances required for Zimmerman's story to be true are literally too much to be believed by a reasonable person.

We do not know exactly where Zimmerman was in relation to the street sign. I don't normally get out to check a street name because I do not normally find myself following someone unless I am on duty and then it's my responsibility to know where I am at all times within my area of responsibility. Zimmerman cannot say the same. You cannot use your personal experience to call that any sort of "contrivance". You're simply assuming it is based on normal, everyday driving. That isn't what Zimmerman was doing. I'm also quite sure Arlington Texas is not special in terms of how fucked up its street signs are.

In any case, thanks for the concession. One minute I'm "ignoring logic" then the next it's "well... uh... it might." Might is all it needs to.

[SVPD]

You see some guy stalking you back from the convenience store, it is entirely plausible that you'd confront him about it (general you, not you in specific).

Doesn't mean that Mr. Martin did that to Zimmerman, but it is plausible.

Confrontation, yes, but since when is leaping on someone from behind your first go-to option for confronting a stranger that's creeping you out?

EDIT: Pressed post too soon. What I am saying is that I would not at all be surprised if Martin approached Mr. Zimmerman, possibly in a manner that could be construed as aggressive. That is not at all out of the question. What I find odd is that Zimmerman's statement indicates that Martin was hiding, waited for Zimmerman to turn his back, and assaulted him. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

One might consider that Martin was a teenager and even well-behaved teens like Martin are likely to use poor judgement simply due to lack of experience and a sense of teen invincibility. They also are not well-known for considering how their actions appear to others. It is entirely possible that Martin confronted Zimmerman in a fashion that appeared more aggressive than he meant it to.

[Ziggy Stardust]

One might consider that Martin was a teenager and even well-behaved teens like Martin are likely to use poor judgement simply due to lack of experience and a sense of teen invincibility.

But jumping on someone from behind without provocation? That seems a bit of a stretch to handwave with "oh, those darned teens are always getting into trouble!"

They also are not well-known for considering how their actions appear to others. It is entirely possible that Martin confronted Zimmerman in a fashion that appeared more aggressive than he meant it to.

... . Yeah ... that's ... literally exactly what I said ....:

What I am saying is that I would not at all be surprised if Martin approached Mr. Zimmerman, possibly in a manner that could be construed as aggressive. That is not at all out of the question.

I am not disputing that Martin may have appeared aggressive to Zimmerman, and may have inadvertently acted in a way that provoked the incident in general. In fact, I specifically said I would NOT AT ALL be surprised if that's what happened. Because that makes sense. That is the sort of interaction that happens a lot, because, as you say, teens are not good with considering how their actions appear. He may very well have been inadvertently aggressive.

However, Zimmerman's claim is that Martin JUMPED HIM. Not only that, but because Zimmerman was following him, this means that Martin must have hidden, waited for Zimmerman to stop the car and get out, wait for him to turn his back, and then ASSAULT him. This does not gel with the idea of a teen being "accidentally" aggressive or some such; it doesn't make any sense why Martin would react in this way, and further doesn't mesh with the girlfriend's testimony.

[SVPD]

Or you try to wrestle a weapon away from him or pin his arms to the ground. When you add assumed details and pass it off as "eye witness" testimony that really skews the perception of what truly happened.

The witness stated the man on top was beating him. Not holding him down. "When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said."

That is a very generic statement. The witness didn't indicate he saw much other than one guy on top of the other. He saw two men in a stuggle, you usually consider the person on top to be "winning" the struggle, and thus "beating up" the other guy. That doesn't equate to your HBO boxing description of "raining blows down on Zimmerman".

He just quoted the witness exactly. Now you're going to say the witness said something other than what he said?

I believe I made it clear that I don't know any of that. However I find it odd that its the only report that would be deemed favorable to Zimmerman and has essentially been ignored aside from the intial news report. That leads me to question its accuracy.

So, you're making your own assumptions while at the same time lecturing me about making assumptions. Awesome.

I'm not making an assumption, I'm questioing the accuracy of the report because it has not been cooberated. It has in fact been contradicted by multiple other witnesses. I also find it incredibly strange that this "John" who is the only person backing Zimmerman's side of the story hasn't been seen or heard from since that initial NEWS report. We don't have his last name, so he may as well be "anonymous". As you can see, many things to question.

You have witnesses testifying as to what they saw after the shooting had already occurred. The first witness is mostly carrying on about what she "believes in her heart" (which is irrelevant) and then claiming that she heard a "little boy" crying, and that somehow means it can't be Zimmerman. Well, guess what? It can't be Martin by that definition either, and regardless she STRAIGHT UP ADMITS that she didn't see. Then she talks about what Zimmerman was doing after Martin was shot.. as if that's relevant.

The second witness said even less; all she did was show up, see the scene after the shooting,a nd then ask Zimmerman what's going on, to which he didn't respond.

Then we get a lawyer straight up lying and calling the women eyewitnesses, which they weren't. They heard something and showed up after the fact.

What you did was pass off your own interpretation of events from an anonymous witnessas though they were eye witness testimony. There is a very stark contrast there.

You mean by "your own version of events" to say "quote the witness". Why do you think he put quotation marks around it?

There is nothing in the anonymous "eye witness account" to dispute anything I said. It simply makes logical fucking sense that if you are in a struggle with a guy with a holstered weapon you are going to be doing whatever you can to keep his hands away from that gun. Yes, obviously it would be possible that he got the gun drawn after he was on the ground, simply unlikely. Its also fucking irrelevent, so I'll drop the point.

No, it doesn't "make logical sense". There are a lot of ways to carry a handgun, and none of them absolutely preclude drawing it while someone is in your mount. Even if Zimmerman had it on his back in his waistband he might possibly be able to draw it. Have you had any training in weapon retention, ground fighting, or anything like that? No? Then don't talk about what "makes logical sense". "Logical sense" is not what seems likely to your inexperienced ass sitting in your chair at the computer.

[SVPD]

One might consider that Martin was a teenager and even well-behaved teens like Martin are likely to use poor judgement simply due to lack of experience and a sense of teen invincibility.

But jumping on someone from behind without provocation? That seems a bit of a stretch to handwave with "oh, those darned teens are always getting into trouble!"

It is a bit of a stretch. I was not saying that particular scenario was likely; I was saying that Martin's manner of dealing with Zimmerman, whatever it might have been, may have been unintetionally aggressive.

They also are not well-known for considering how their actions appear to others. It is entirely possible that Martin confronted Zimmerman in a fashion that appeared more aggressive than he meant it to.

... . Yeah ... that's ... literally exactly what I said ....:

I was agreeing with that. What's the problem?

I am not disputing that Martin may have appeared aggressive to Zimmerman, and may have inadvertently acted in a way that provoked the incident in general. In fact, I specifically said I would NOT AT ALL be surprised if that's what happened. Because that makes sense. That is the sort of interaction that happens a lot, because, as you say, teens are not good with considering how their actions appear. He may very well have been inadvertently aggressive.

However, Zimmerman's claim is that Martin JUMPED HIM. Not only that, but because Zimmerman was following him, this means that Martin must have hidden, waited for Zimmerman to stop the car and get out, wait for him to turn his back, and then ASSAULT him. This does not gel with the idea of a teen being "accidentally" aggressive or some such; it doesn't make any sense why Martin would react in this way, and further doesn't mesh with the girlfriend's testimony.

The problem is that you're using an overly narrow definition of "jumped him". People often use "jumped him" when they mean "shoved me", "took the first swing" or a multitude of other things. It;s a slang term and does not always mean "ambushed from behind." People like to use it because it carries connotations of ambush and makes them sound like a victim but it doesn't always mean that. If someone tells me their attacker "jumped them" my next interview question is "exactly what do you mean he did when you say he jumped you?"

[Broomstick]

1) This is the first I've heard of Zimmerman being "in hiding."

I've been hearing it for a couple days now over the TV and radio - it's actually a sensible move on his part given how high emotions are running. His lawyer has stated Zimmerman has received death threats over this.

2) The New Black Panthers are obviously a bunch of shitheads. Apparently several have been interviewed by the media recently in connection with this case; an editorial I read somewhere compared to to interviewing the KKK in a case of black-on-white violence. I'm guessing this is a publicity bonanza for the group, I had never even heard of them.

Yes, they are shitheads. They've been around since at least the early 1990's, they even ran a few candidates in local elections in Chicago back when I was still living in the city. The old, original Black Panthers from the 1960's have said the NBPP is not them, they took their name without permission (some of the old Black Panthers even sued to get them to stop using the name but were unsuccessful), and they have no connections to the original. Most of the NBPP, as far as I can tell, are either Nation of Islam or former Nation of Islam members, which means out of Louis Farrakhan's camp. They are anti-capitalism, advocates of revolution, and the Southern Poverty Law Center lists them as a hate group. Their former leader (late 1990's until his death in the early 00's) was once quoted as saying "there are no good crackers, and if you find one, kill him before he changes."

3) Though "stand your ground" may not be Zimmerman's defense, his story certainly reminds me of the "dead men tell no tales" critique of "stand your ground" by Florida's chief prosecutor.

Zimmerman's lawyer says "stand your ground" will be part of his defense. He's also claiming Zimmerman received injuries, including a broken nose, from Martin. If there is documentation of such then it does strengthen Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, although it wouldn't be the only thing needed to prove that claim.

[SVPD]

This might seem silly, but looking at the picture of Martin, he looks like a scrawny kid. Zimmerman by contrast is at least overweight if not already in the obese category. So in a fight, Martin would someone over power the guy such that Zimmerman was desperate enough to use a firearm? Zimmerman looks like he could crush an opponent by sitting on them.

Contrary to popular belief, a weight advantage in terms of obesity is not an advantage in a fight, even with a scrawny opponent. You can't just "sit on" someone. Obese people, once they're down, find it harder to get up; fat is simply not muscle.

As for Martin, he played football and therefore was probably fairly strong for his build.

[Anguirus]

Correcting a witness who is making an assumption that they cannot testify to is not "tainting the witness pool".

Yes, but IIRC the allegation is that the witness was told that Zimmerman was screaming when they said that Martin was screaming. What would be the basis for this "correction," other than the words of another witness? You can imagine that I don't think it would be proper for police to correct other witnesses based on Zimmerman's testimony.

I agree though that witness quality matters, though witnesses in general are sadly unreliable. I'm at least confident that at this point there will be an independent and meticulous investigation, though it will suffer for the delay. For instance, it strikes me as stupid and self-defeating for Zimmerman's attorney to lie about his broken nose. If Zimmerman did get a broken nose, it at least supports that they were both doing some damage to each other.

Of course, if there is a criminal trial, finding a jury is going to be insanely difficult and either verdict would cause an outcry. Whatever the legal realities turn out to be.

One way or another, Zimmerman made a life-defining (for him) and life-destroying (for Martin) mistake when he chose to follow him. I don't think Zimmerman is an ogre, but he displayed very poor judgment and priorities and it's hard to imagine that society's demonization of young black men did not play a role in this tragedy.

[aerius]

See here's the thing. What matters is really not if he followed the kid, but the manner in which he did it. If he acted in such a way as to make Martin feel he was in imminent danger of assault, or did assault Martin, then Martin was within his rights to defend himself. We don't know for sure if this is the case, but given Martin's clean record, it's likely that Zimmerman did something that made the kid feel he was in imminent danger.

Once Martin has him down and is on top of him (assuming that is true) then all that becomes irrelevant. Mounting someone like that is an overwhelming advantage; hitting them in the head in that position is deadly force since you can basically just hit them until their skull caves in and a person unskilled in ground fighting will be unlikely to break the mount. At this point, the previous situation loses a great deal of its relevance. Self-defense does not allow simply beating someone who is already down just because "they started it". It especially does not allow you to carry things into the territory of deadly force. A person who is threatened with deadly force, even after they provoked someone with nondeadly force, has an excellent argument for self-defense, or at least for a much lesser charge than murder.

This here is all that really matters, everything else from the 911 calls to the alleged stalking or even who started the altercation is of secondary importance at best.

All we have to go by so far that's in any way reliable is the physical evidence, and that is the fact that Zimmerman had grass stains on his back and injuries which are are consistent with ending up on his back on the grass, getting mounted, and getting his head punched while in that position. We also know that Martin was shot in the chest.

That's all we know right now. When they do the forensics they can look at the entry angle of the bullet and various other things to figure out the likely positions of Martin & Zimmerman when the shot was fired. We'll see if it's consitent with Martin getting shot while he was mounted on Zimmerman. If it is then Zimmerman will either walk free or get a slap on the wrist, and there's a reason for that.

Once you've got someone mounted and you're punching them in the head from that position, you've moved from self-defence to committing your own act of assault & battery. Once the guy is down, it's generally not self-defence anymore, and especially not if you decide to give him the boot after he's down or mount him and continue beating on him. The person on the receiving end of the beating now gets to claim self-defence, and depending on which State he's in that can involve lethal force.

[SVPD]

Correcting a witness who is making an assumption that they cannot testify to is not "tainting the witness pool".

Yes, but IIRC the allegation is that the witness was told that Zimmerman was screaming when they said that Martin was screaming. What would be the basis for this "correction," other than the words of another witness? You can imagine that I don't think it would be proper for police to correct other witnesses based on Zimmerman's testimony.

Possibly. It depends. If the other witness was, for example, and eyewitness, that correction might be the basis for determining what the witness actually saw or heard and what they assumed. I'd need to see the entire interview to determine for sure. Your point is not without merit however; it may have simply been a mistake to say that, but that does not automatically make it "witness tampering". Something like "No, it was Zimmerman, and that's what you'll testify to" would be tampering. Something like "Did you see who was screaming? No. How do you know it was Martin? Well, I think it was. Why? We talked to another witness and he said he saw Zimmerman screaming. Oh.. well, I guess I don't know then." is not. It also depends on lawyer spin.

I agree though that witness quality matters, though witnesses in general are sadly unreliable. I'm at least confident that at this point there will be an independent and meticulous investigation, though it will suffer for the delay. For instance, it strikes me as stupid and self-defeating for Zimmerman's attorney to lie about his broken nose. If Zimmerman did get a broken nose, it at least supports that they were both doing some damage to each other.

I agree.

Of course, if there is a criminal trial, finding a jury is going to be insanely difficult and either verdict would cause an outcry. Whatever the legal realities turn out to be.

It's usually not that hard to find a jury. The greater problem will be the inevitable insistence that there aren't enough blacks on the jury if he isn't found guilty, and it was racism that got him off. One wonders how it is not racist to simply assume nonblacks will vote not guilty and blacks will vote guilty, or by what stretch of the imagination a verdict (in either direction) gained on that basis is in any way fair.

One way or another, Zimmerman made a life-defining (for him) and life-destroying (for Martin) mistake when he chose to follow him. I don't think Zimmerman is an ogre, but he displayed very poor judgment and priorities and it's hard to imagine that society's demonization of young black men did not play a role in this tragedy.

I agree that Zimmerman showed poor, even appalling judgement.

Blacks are very much part of "society" and I could easily claim they are "idolizing" young black men by insisting that every unfavorable interaction with other races is the result of racism. I could also point out that society quickly demonizes anyone or anything that is proclaimed "racist" with no discussion of whether that definition of racism is reasonable. In this case, he was a good kid but that simply isn't always the case. In fact, neither claims of "idolization" nor "demonization" are fair. The basic problem is that it is simply impossible to have a dispassionate discussion about race in this country. One side of the discussion simply refuses to entertain any discussion in which they do not both A) control the definition of what is racism and B) get to use it as a bludgeon to suppress discussion and the other side is unwilling to accept that there are still racial issues in this country.

The simple fact is that racism and racial issues in the United States are a totally different animal in the United States than they were in 1964, 74 or 84, but one side is still fighting the same battles as back then, and the other side is cynically allowing them to do it and using the resulting backlash for political gain.

[TheHammer]

That is a very generic statement. The witness didn't indicate he saw much other than one guy on top of the other. He saw two men in a stuggle, you usually consider the person on top to be "winning" the struggle, and thus "beating up" the other guy. That doesn't equate to your HBO boxing description of "raining blows down on Zimmerman".

He just quoted the witness exactly. Now you're going to say the witness said something other than what he said?

I took issue with his earlier statements that there was an eye witness that said "Martin was straddling Zimmerman and raining blows down upon his head".

I'm not making an assumption, I'm questioing the accuracy of the report because it has not been cooberated. It has in fact been contradicted by multiple other witnesses. I also find it incredibly strange that this "John" who is the only person backing Zimmerman's side of the story hasn't been seen or heard from since that initial NEWS report. We don't have his last name, so he may as well be "anonymous". As you can see, many things to question.

You have witnesses testifying as to what they saw after the shooting had already occurred. The first witness is mostly carrying on about what she "believes in her heart" (which is irrelevant) and then claiming that she heard a "little boy" crying, and that somehow means it can't be Zimmerman. Well, guess what? It can't be Martin by that definition either, and regardless she STRAIGHT UP ADMITS that she didn't see. Then she talks about what Zimmerman was doing after Martin was shot.. as if that's relevant.

The second witness said even less; all she did was show up, see the scene after the shooting,a nd then ask Zimmerman what's going on, to which he didn't respond.

Then we get a lawyer straight up lying and calling the women eyewitnesses, which they weren't. They heard something and showed up after the fact.

Point being that these are actual people who can be found and talked to who are willing to testify to what they heard and saw. That is in contrast to this anonymous "John" that no one has found. When he shows up either on TV or in court where he's willing to attach his name, then his words will actually carry some weight.

What you did was pass off your own interpretation of events from an anonymous witnessas though they were eye witness testimony. There is a very stark contrast there.

You mean by "your own version of events" to say "quote the witness". Why do you think he put quotation marks around it?

Look dipshit, don't jump in to the middle of this when you clearly don't know what the fuck the issue was, namely that prior to quoting this "witness" that no one can seem to locate, KS made statements to the effect that "A witness said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman RAINING BLOWS down on him". A statement that in fact was not made to anyone by anyone.

There is nothing in the anonymous "eye witness account" to dispute anything I said. It simply makes logical fucking sense that if you are in a struggle with a guy with a holstered weapon you are going to be doing whatever you can to keep his hands away from that gun. Yes, obviously it would be possible that he got the gun drawn after he was on the ground, simply unlikely. Its also fucking irrelevent, so I'll drop the point.

No, it doesn't "make logical sense". There are a lot of ways to carry a handgun, and none of them absolutely preclude drawing it while someone is in your mount. Even if Zimmerman had it on his back in his waistband he might possibly be able to draw it. Have you had any training in weapon retention, ground fighting, or anything like that? No? Then don't talk about what "makes logical sense". "Logical sense" is not what seems likely to your inexperienced ass sitting in your chair at the computer.

What part of "I'm dropping this irrelevent point" did you not understand?

[Anguirus]

Blacks are very much part of "society" and I could easily claim they are "idolizing" young black men by insisting that every unfavorable interaction with other races is the result of racism.

Black people are obviously part of society. I have spoken to and read the writings of many black people who themselves feel fear and distrust when a young black man approaches them on the street.

You can make whatever claim you want but that does not mean that it holds.

I could also point out that society quickly demonizes anyone or anything that is proclaimed "racist" with no discussion of whether that definition of racism is reasonable.

That is facially untrue. There is a not-insignificant pro-Zimmerman movement.

Not everyone has the same working definition of racism, true. However, it is not, to me, in dispute that racism is systematic inequality between the races in society. "Racism" is not "that way that racists feel." And if George Zimmerman is not "a racist" it does not follow that the case had nothing to do with racism.

You know just as well as I do that the media does not remark on most shooting deaths of 17 year old black boys. It is the sheer lack of any risk factors except race that could possibly lead to an honors student being gunned down in a gated community that tends to focus the attention.

The basic problem is that it is simply impossible to have a dispassionate discussion about race in this country.

Naturally. Should we avoid discussing it then?

The persistence of racism is a deeply frustrating and emotional topic for me. Every day I am conscious of the incredible privilege I have to be a straight white male. I was just pulled over at the dead of night in a small town in rural Texas in my fiancee's car with an expired out-of-state license plate (working on it, obviously), and an out-of-state license. I felt no fear, barely any apprehension, and drove off with a verbal warning. It's freaking awesome to be a white guy, especially since I can do a good innocent face and would probably lose ten rounds with a squirrel.

I will not declare racism or sexism irrelevant in the USA until AT LEAST whiteness and maleness cease to be such excellent predictors of wealth, income, success, and as far as whiteness goes life span of individuals in this country. I benefit materially from historical factors beyond anyone's control, so I might at least have some sympathy for the other guy.

My fellow white males are prone to saying such things as "I don't see race." They don't have to. That is their privilege...hell, their luxury. And never mind that hundreds of psychological studies show that they are wrong, and unconsciously do judge by race. (Hey, should I hire George or Trayvon? John or Barack?)

The simple fact is that racism and racial issues in the United States are a totally different animal in the United States than they were in 1964, 74 or 84, but one side is still fighting the same battles as back then, and the other side is cynically allowing them to do it and using the resulting backlash for political gain.

They are different, but no less important. The destruction of open apartheid has given a large bloc of the white community carte blanche to say racism is "over". But racism is systemic inequality based on race, and it follows trivially that this is NOT true.

People can believe what they want, but no academic or useful definition of "racism" is "what racists do." (Also not "what white people do to other races," no race is inoculated against racism.)

There, trying to put all my biases, backgrounds, definitions, and opinions on the table.

[SVPD]

Blacks are very much part of "society" and I could easily claim they are "idolizing" young black men by insisting that every unfavorable interaction with other races is the result of racism.

Black people are obviously part of society. I have spoken to and read the writings of many black people who themselves feel fear and distrust when a young black man approaches them on the street.

You can make whatever claim you want but that does not mean that it holds.

Unspecified anecdotal evidence is not terribly convincing.

I could also point out that society quickly demonizes anyone or anything that is proclaimed "racist" with no discussion of whether that definition of racism is reasonable.

That is facially untrue. There is a not-insignificant pro-Zimmerman movement.

By this definition, it is then factually untrue that society demonizes young black men. There is a significant pro-Martin movement.

Here's the thing. "Society" generally doesn't only do one thing in regard to an issue.

Not everyone has the same working definition of racism, true. However, it is not, to me, in dispute that racism is systematic inequality between the races in society. "Racism" is not "that way that racists feel." And if George Zimmerman is not "a racist" it does not follow that the case had nothing to do with racism.

I dispute that greatly. I do not see that "systematic inequality" is racism at all. This is in fact, a method of defining racism that ensures it will never be dealt with; inequality is simply called "racism"; and the underlying causes of economics, education and such things are ignored in favor of simply screaming about racism. Those inequalities have their roots in racism in the past, but they are not today perpetuated by active racism. Rather, they're self-sustaining and poor education leads to economic disadvantage and high crime, which lead in turn to further poor education and so forth.

You know just as well as I do that the media does not remark on most shooting deaths of 17 year old black boys. It is the sheer lack of any risk factors except race that could possibly lead to an honors student being gunned down in a gated community that tends to focus the attention.

Thre is not any "lack of factors". Stupidity, paranoia and general busybody behavior on the part of Zimmerman, combined with the general poor judgement of even well-behaved teens, especially in a crisis, are more than sufficient without race being a factor at all.

The basic problem is that it is simply impossible to have a dispassionate discussion about race in this country.

Naturally. Should we avoid discussing it then?

Possibly, we should. Frankly, until using the word "racism" ceases to be a meaningful form of discussion it is impossible to have one. It simply wraps the disucssion up in defensiveness and denial on one side and outrage and tilting at windmills on the other.

The persistence of racism is a deeply frustrating and emotional topic for me. Every day I am conscious of the incredible privilege I have to be a straight white male. I was just pulled over at the dead of night in a small town in rural Texas in my fiancee's car with an expired out-of-state license plate (working on it, obviously), and an out-of-state license. I felt no fear, barely any apprehension, and drove off with a verbal warning. It's freaking awesome to be a white guy, especially since I can do a good innocent face and would probably lose ten rounds with a squirrel.

Frankly, I do not think this has anything to do with you being a white guy. If you were black, there would really be no excuse for you haveing any fear whatsoever in that situation until and unless the officer did something to indicate that you ought to be afraid of him. Your only excuse to fear him would be your own sterotyping, prejudice, and bigotry against white police officers. In point of fact, it's exactly the same thing that society does to young black males. How do you know the outcome would have been any different if you were black? You don't, and you have no good reason to think so. In fact, what if you were a minority and pulled over by a minority cop? You'd still be scared? What about minorities I've seen ask minority cops for a favor because "hey, we're both minorities"? Black men that refer to black cops as "brother"? A lot of this "fear" is simply a tactic to divert attention from why the officer was dealing with them in the first place, and it's really easy to make up a story of anything you want on the internet.

You don't have any incredible privilege. For every privilege you have there is a scholarship, program, fund, or other way in which a minority can get something you can't. That's not unfair; minorities generally do suffer socioeconomic disadvantage, but this myth of "incredible privilege" is something left over from the 1960s.

I'd also point out that if YOU get shot in suspicious circumstances by a Zimmerman, or a black man, there will be no national outrage for you.

I will not declare racism or sexism irrelevant in the USA until AT LEAST whiteness and maleness cease to be such excellent predictors of wealth, income, success, and as far as whiteness goes life span of individuals in this country. I benefit materially from historical factors beyond anyone's control, so I might at least have some sympathy for the other guy.

I really don't care when you think racism or sexism will be irrelevant, mainly because this definition is so highly unreasonable. This means that it's "racist" if whites have it better, on average, than minorities regardless of what changes in attitudes, laws, or policies have been made. This is precisely the sort of outrageous definition of racism that makes discussion impossible, or rather the habit some people have of calling any contesting of this definition to be "Racism" in and of itself.

I also notice you say "at least". What else would you like to see? When being white or male isn't a predictor of economic success, what else is necessary.

My fellow white males are prone to saying such things as "I don't see race." They don't have to. That is their privilege...hell, their luxury. And never mind that hundreds of psychological studies show that they are wrong, and unconsciously do judge by race. (Hey, should I hire George or Trayvon? John or Barack?)

No kidding. Just like your black men that "fear" white police officers. You are not going to solve problems of unconscious judging by screaming about "racism". Rather, socioeconomic and educational issues have to be addressed so that the unconscious basis disappears.

It is not any privilege or luxury, however. This is sheer nonsense. If you're white and poor or unemployed or whatever, you have it just as bad as a minority - maybe worse since no one will be talking about how racist it is that you're in such straights. Disadvantage is to the individual, not to the group. A rich black man is not automatically less rich because he's black, or less rich because there are a disproportionate numebr of poor black men.

They are different, but no less important. The destruction of open apartheid has given a large bloc of the white community carte blanche to say racism is "over". But racism is systemic inequality based on race, and it follows trivially that this is NOT true.

Racism is NOT systematic inequality based on race. Racism is actions that discriminate against a particular race AND which serve no other overriding purpose.

People can believe what they want, but no academic or useful definition of "racism" is "what racists do." (Also not "what white people do to other races," no race is inoculated against racism.)

There, trying to put all my biases, backgrounds, definitions, and opinions on the table.

Obviously not. No worthwhile definition defines a word using itself. Racism, however, is not "systematic inequality, regardless of the factors that cause it.

Systematic inequality in this country has its roots in racism of the past, but it isn't racism in and of itself. In fact, that's circular. "Racism, is systemic inequality. Systemic inequality is caused by racism. How do we know? Well, because the races are systematically unequal and that's racist!"

It utterly ignores the underlying socieoeconomic problems in favor of ranting and screaming and ensures that the systematic equality will never be addressed.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That is a very generic statement. The witness didn't indicate he saw much other than one guy on top of the other. He saw two men in a stuggle, you usually consider the person on top to be "winning" the struggle, and thus "beating up" the other guy. That doesn't equate to your HBO boxing description of "raining blows down on Zimmerman".

It also does not equate to your description of "holding his arms down". Obviously, the news report doesn't have all the details and the term "beating up" can mean many things. All we can derive is that Zimmerman was in a position of disadvantage.

I'm not making an assumption, I'm questioing the accuracy of the report because it has not been cooberated. It has in fact been contradicted by multiple other witnesses. I also find it incredibly strange that this "John" who is the only person backing Zimmerman's side of the story hasn't been seen or heard from since that initial NEWS report. We don't have his last name, so he may as well be "anonymous". As you can see, many things to question.

What you did was pass off your own interpretation of events from an anonymous witnessas though they were eye witness testimony. There is a very stark contrast there.

Those witnesses aren't eye witnesses. They also thought they heard two shots but evidence collected at the scene revealed only one shot had been fired. The eye witness in the report describes Zimmerman as the one crying for help. What motive do you have for discounting an eye witness? If it is just because the media doesn't have his last name then that is a piss poor reason.

You'd need a damn good reason as a police officer to discount the statement of an eye witness over that of a non-eye witnesses.

There is nothing in the anonymous "eye witness account" to dispute anything I said. It simply makes logical fucking sense that if you are in a struggle with a guy with a holstered weapon you are going to be doing whatever you can to keep his hands away from that gun. Yes, obviously it would be possible that he got the gun drawn after he was on the ground, simply unlikely. Its also fucking irrelevent, so I'll drop the point.

There's nothing in the eye witness account to dispute what i've said either. Like you said "beating" him could mean many things. You're also assuming that Martin was aware the guy was armed. Most CCW laws require that you conceal the weapon from view. Though if Martin knew about it then yeah you're right he would be doing everything he could. It's still possible to win that fight.

[SVPD]

I took issue with his earlier statements that there was an eye witness that said "Martin was straddling Zimmerman and raining blows down upon his head".

Why? Just ebcause this witness wasn't at a press conference like the 2 nitwits you cited?

Point being that these are actual people who can be found and talked to who are willing to testify to what they heard and saw. That is in contrast to this anonymous "John" that no one has found. When he shows up either on TV or in court where he's willing to attach his name, then his words will actually carry some weight.

Evidently John did talk to someone or we wouldn't know what he said at all. Earlier you were complaining it was a reporter. These women are more credible to you just ebcause they got on TV with all the attendant weeping and crying? What does being on TV have to do with credibility?

Look dipshit, don't jump in to the middle of this when you clearly don't know what the fuck the issue was, namely that prior to quoting this "witness" that no one can seem to locate, KS made statements to the effect that "A witness said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman RAINING BLOWS down on him". A statement that in fact was not made to anyone by anyone.

Semantic nitpicking. He later quoted the witness exactly. So what if the exact words weren't "raining blows"? I have never known KS to lie.

No, it doesn't "make logical sense". There are a lot of ways to carry a handgun, and none of them absolutely preclude drawing it while someone is in your mount. Even if Zimmerman had it on his back in his waistband he might possibly be able to draw it. Have you had any training in weapon retention, ground fighting, or anything like that? No? Then don't talk about what "makes logical sense". "Logical sense" is not what seems likely to your inexperienced ass sitting in your chair at the computer.

What part of "I'm dropping this irrelevent point" did you not understand?

[/quote]

Doubtless it was the part where you pretended to drop it and then discussed it anyhow which I replied to.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I took issue with his earlier statements that there was an eye witness that said "Martin was straddling Zimmerman and raining blows down upon his head".

Did you miss the post where I conceded that? I responded to you because you in turn did exactly what I did...you said "Or you try to wrestle a weapon away from him or pin his arms".

Point being that these are actual people who can be found and talked to who are willing to testify to what they heard and saw. That is in contrast to this anonymous "John" that no one has found. When he shows up either on TV or in court where he's willing to attach his name, then his words will actually carry some weight.

The police found John. There are three witnesses listed in the police report you cited. Two female (the I heard witnesses) and one male.

Look dipshit, don't jump in to the middle of this when you clearly don't know what the fuck the issue was, namely that prior to quoting this "witness" that no one can seem to locate, KS made statements to the effect that "A witness said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman RAINING BLOWS down on him". A statement that in fact was not made to anyone by anyone.

And look dispshit don't continue beating a conceded remark and have issue when I call you on doing the exact same thing.

What part of "I'm dropping this irrelevent point" did you not understand?

What part of the conceding the "raining blows down" part did you not understand?

[aerius]

"But he was such a good kid! Completely innocent I tell you!" Well...maybe not...

Miami Herald link

Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of Trayvon Martin
Thousands of people gathered in Sanford to demand an arrest in the case, as more details surfaced about the teen’s suspensions in school.
By Frances Robles
frobles@MiamiHerald.com

SANFORD -- As thousands of people gathered here to demand an arrest in the Trayvon Martin case, a more complicated portrait began to emerge of a teenager whose problems at school ranged from getting spotted defacing lockers to getting caught with a marijuana baggie and women’s jewelry.

The Miami Gardens teen who has become a national symbol of racial injustice was suspended three times, and had a spotty school record that his family’s attorneys say is irrelevant to the facts that led up to his being gunned down on Feb. 26.

In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.” Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with “W.T.F” — an acronym for “what the f---.” The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.

Instead the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald. Word of the incident came as the family’s lawyer acknowledged that the boy was suspended in February for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana, which he called “irrelevant” and an attempt to demonize a victim.

Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds.

Trayvon was asked if the jewelry belonged to his family or a girlfriend.

“Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” he responded, according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.

Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to the report. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation.

A lawyer for the dead teen’s family acknowledged Trayvon had been suspended for graffiti, but said the family knew nothing about the jewelry and the screwdriver.

“It’s completely irrelevant to what happened Feb. 26,” said attorney Benjamin Crump. “They never heard this, and don’t believe it’s true. If it were true, why wouldn’t they call the parents? Why wasn’t he arrested?”

Trayvon, who was a junior at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School, had never been arrested, police and the family have said.

“We think everybody is trying to demonize him,” Crump said.

No evidence ever surfaced that the jewelry was stolen.

“Martin was suspended, warned and dismissed for the graffiti,” according to the report prepared by schools police.

That suspension was followed four months later by another one in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a “marijuana pipe.”

The punishment was the third for the teen. On Monday, the family also said Trayvon had earlier been suspended for tardiness and truancy.

Trayvon was shot to death Feb. 26 while serving out his suspension in Sanford, where his father’s girlfriend lives. A neighborhood watch volunteer called the police to say he saw someone in a hoodie who looked high on drugs, and was suspicious because he walked too slowly in the rain. The unarmed teenager carried Skittles and iced tea, and was talking to his girlfriend on the phone, records show.

Zimmerman told police Trayvon jumped him, punched him in the face and slammed his head on the ground, according to information published by the Orlando Sentinel. The news account came a day after a friend of Zimmerman’s took to television network programs to say the watchman was the victim in the case.

“That sounded like someone in dire need of help,” said friend Joe Oliver, referring to cries heard on 911 tapes. “That sounded like George.”

Zimmerman’s attorney, Craig Sonner, did not return repeated requests for an interview.

Trayvon’s parents viewed the new reports as an orchestrated campaign to demonize their son as a “junkie and thief,” a routine occurrence in such cases, the Rev. Al Sharpton said at an afternoon press conference. Zimmerman, Sharpton said, had no way of knowing about Trayvon’s school record — “because he didn’t interview him before he shot him.”

“The only thing that’s relevant is what Zimmerman knew,” Sharpton said. “Let’s not play this double standard of trying to damage who is dead and sanitize who is the cause of the death.”

Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, said her son never had any problems with gangs or the police. In fact, she said, when she transferred him out of Carol City High School to be closer to home, the school wanted him to stay at Carol City because they liked him and he was a good student.

“They killed my son, and now they are trying to kill his reputation,” Fulton said.

Another lawyer for the family said she didn’t put much credence in the report about the jewelry and the screwdriver.

“This is someone in a school writing a report, rumor as far as I’m concerned,” said attorney Natalie Jackson.

The boy’s checkered school record was of little importance to the thousands of people who descended on the city’s civic center for a special city council meeting. Speaker after speaker blasted the investigation and demanded the police file charges in the case.

“We want to reaffirm that we too are in pursuit of truth and justice,” Mayor Jeff Triplett said.

Participants included bus and carloads of people from Miami, including some from Trayvon’s church. Wearing a T-shirt declaring “I am a man,” Miami Homicide Sgt. Ervens Ford was among them.

“This is personal,” Ford said. “I have a son that age. I am getting ready to release him to the world. I have to expose him to things like this. I also have a 12-year-old. I have to be realistic about it: It very very well could have been either one of them.”

Like so many black fathers in America, Ford finds himself schooling his sons on what clothes to wear, what to say to a cop. He calls it “conflict resolution.”

“That man was following him around the way he was, placing Trayvon in fear. Had Travyon shot him and claimed ‘Stand Your Ground,’ Trayvon would have been arrested,” he said. “I’m saying this having been law enforcement for 25 years. I am saying this, and it is my conviction.”

Liberty City activist Renita Holmes attended with about a dozen fellow protesters.

“This case broke me,” she said. “If we continue to do it, it will make a difference. The way we handle this should be a precedent on how we handle every case.”

It's about as relevant to the case as Zimmerman's prior arrest and dozens of police phone-ins, which is to say it isn't. But what this tells me is that neither person involved was a shining example of goodness & morality, both of them are somewhat questionable characters.

[Flagg]

So getting suspended from school for tardiness, truancy, and drug paraphernalia equals attacking police officers and domestic abuse calls? It also invalidates prior evidence of racist attitudes on Zimmermans part? What planet are you from, again?

[SVPD]

So getting suspended from school for tardiness, truancy, and drug paraphernalia equals attacking police officers and domestic abuse calls? It also invalidates prior evidence of racist attitudes on Zimmermans part? What planet are you from, again?

Are you fucking retarded? No one has made any such claim. The claim is solely that Martin is not quite as innocent as initially portrayed. It doesn't need to "equal" anything on Zimmerman's part; it is not a contest to see who has the worst prior record you fucking idiot.

As for Zimmerman's racist attitude, well, we all know he likes to call the police to report suspicious small black children ...

Adam Weinstein and Matt DeLuca have pulled the logs of 911 calls that George Zimmerman made before this year's shooting. Spot the pattern. From Weinstein:

In August 2011, he called to report a black male in a tank top and shorts acting suspicious near the development's back entrance. "[Complainant] believes [subject] is involved in recent S-21s"—break-ins—"in the neighborhood," the call log states. The suspect, Zimmerman told the dispatcher, fit a recent description given out by law enforcement officers.

Three days later, he called to report two black teens in the same area, for the same reason. "[Juveniles] are the subjs who have been [burglarizing] in this area," he told the dispatcher.

From DeLuca:

On April 22, 2011, Zimmerman called to report a black male about “7-9” years old, four feet tall, with a “skinny build” and short black hair. There is no indication in the police report of the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion of the boy.

Pretty outrageous, eh?

oh... wait (see page 37)

"Is walking alone & is not supervised on busy street. Compl concerned for well being"

Yeah he's such a racist paranoid nutjob that he calls the police and reports small black children because he's concerned that they're on the street by themselves unsupervised.

But then, since the media is blatantly lying about calls like that one, and claiming there's "no reason given" for the call about the 7-9 year old child, that must mean their assertions about Zimmerman's history are totally founded, right!?

On April 22, 2011, Zimmerman called to report a black male about “7-9” years old, four feet tall, with a “skinny build” and short black hair. There is no indication in the police report of the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion of the boy.

Yeah, you're damn right there's no indication of his reason for suspicion because he wasn't suspicious. He called because he saw what appeared to be a lost child and was concerned.. a lost black child. But I'm sure you can be concerned for the well-being of black children and still be a "racist".

Then again, maybe I'm being to hard on you. After all, the media isn't exactly bringing to light things like the truth about Zimmerman's call history. After all, why call into question his racism when it generates so much more outrage to claim he calls the cops with suspicions about young black children, and sells more news?

[Flagg]

I was directly responding to this:

It's about as relevant to the case as Zimmerman's prior arrest and dozens of police phone-ins, which is to say it isn't. But what this tells me is that neither person involved was a shining example of goodness & morality, both of them are somewhat questionable characters.

Which seems to make the claim that Martin being truant, missing classes, and possessing drug paraphernalia cancels out Zimmermans history of domestic violence and assault on a police officer. How fucking hard is this to comprehend?